Showing the single result

0 thoughts on “Book

    1. I appreciate it! I’m just trying to get people talking about topics that are actually important, and dive below the surface. It’s about educating with reference to history and age-old ideas, so we can better understand the current dialogue

  1. Great, what ideas are important to you? I am open to change and would like to learn about your point of view please.

    I believe in Justificationism, a philosophy that I made up! And I believe that everyone justifies their behaviour and perspective by preference! Do you have any suggestions how I can change my philosophy to make it even simpler?

    1. I basically believe in Classical Liberalism as it is described in the Declaration of Independence. Today, I would be a conservative libertarian. I believe in pushing back the power of government in a way that preserves the institutions that protect liberty and provides more liberty to more people. My core beliefs would be a voluntaryist position, but knowing that the unraveling of the state would take time, I take the conservative stance on dismantling the state powers so that the baby is not thrown out with the bath water.

      1. But the reason for this blog is to put my thoughts on topics out there in more than 140 characters and spark discussion, debates and conversations that lead to fruitful solutions to problems. I think there are solutions besides the state and finding and enacting these is the key to reclaiming liberty.

    2. To learn about that, I would look to the Greek philosophers. The pre-Socratics talk a lot about perception and how it should be understood in relation to truth. Socrates, Aristotle and Plato have a lot to say on that too. Then, look at Jordan Pederson’s stuff. He really dives into the inter-workings of psychology and philosophy and how philosophies can affect the physiology of people through their psyche.

      But for anything about learning how to make the assumption and use a line of reason to a logical conclusion, Greek thoughts and methods are the best.

  2. I accept your point of view, and thank you for sharing it with me!

    I have read your comments several times and it may take me some time to think of interesting things to say because in my opinion, government and politics can be very complicated!

    However, I can easily relate to the idea of liberty! I love liberty!

    And I would like to add to the conversation by saying, there is a difference between liberty and freedom, and those definitions can be a grey area that some people debate!

    Thank you for sharing with me!

    1. I’m always willing to share! I’m glad you took the time to share your thoughts with me. Hopefully, you keep adding to this because I enjoy the engaging conversation!

      I agree that they are different. I think that freedom is derived from your ability to do so due to a lack of interference of any sort, and liberty is a lack of interference by the state. That is why American ideas of liberty are different: the founders believed that both were important in their own regard.

  3. I love the great books! I love western and eastern thought! I also think that it may be possible that our philosophies relate to our psychology! I love discourse!

    You are doing a great job! Thank you for providing this service!

    1. Hi,

      I just wanted to let you know that I got your message. I will look through it, and let you know what I think! Sorry I didn’t reply earlier, but I had gone to bed.

      A couple questions:

      Do you believe that their is an objective truth?

      Do you believe there should be lawful recourse for injury?

      I would dive into the thought behind the first amendment when discussing your first point. It basically restates the freedoms enumerated there.

    1. There can only be objective or subjective truth, but they cannot both exist. Subjective truth is often confused with the inability to express the complete objective truth, or an inability to know the entire objective truth. Either way, the truth is true. Human perceptions distort their view of it, but that does not make it less true. For instance, 2+2=4, which is obviously objectively true. The truth is not so easy to decide in a murder trial. Either the defendant did the crime or he didn’t and it happened a certain way, but people’s perceptions, evidence and preconceived notions can interfere with their ability to decipher the truth since it isn’t as simple.

      I don’t think justice can coincide with the third point the way it is written. This is because everyone being able to decide correlation and causation of consequences would interfere with the idea that actions have certain consequences. There is, in my opinion, cosmological justice that we can’t escape, and our ideas of justice are mechanisms we’ve found that fall in line with the cosmological justice that existed before us.

  4. Sure! I can accept your point of view. I can see your position and I like it.

    1. In regards to truth following your murder trial example, a grey area can be the issue of contributory negligence, or conspiracy.

    Here’s an example of a subjective truth:
    I like ice cream. That is true for me, but not everyone else.

    Here’s an example of an objective truth:
    Everybody poops.

    2. In regards to justice, I’m also of the position that there is both subjective and objective justice.

    Here’s an example of subjective justice:

    It seems whether we like it or not, the notions of justice are always contested. And I think a jury is a bunch of random people who get together to decide on correlation and causation of consequences. Plus, there’s different styles of jurisprudence around the world.

    Here’s an example of objective justice:
    In line with your mathematical example, 4/2 = 2
    Or any idea for that matter! Any idea in itself is an object, subject to our interpretations of what it is.

    What do you think, am I expressing myself clearly enough, and questions?

    I’ve updated justificationism.com again to new levels of clarity, can you help me tear it apart so I can rebuild it?

    1. I would say hat whether or not ice cream tastes good is subjective, but whether or not an individual enjoys it is objective. It’s yes or no.

      Also, I think that the inability of an individual or group to decipher the truth does not make it subjective. Different forms of justice do exist, but there is a true form of justice and it must be applied to the individual. As imperfect beings, we cannot attain perfect truth or justice, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist. We can only get closer to it

  5. So to summarize, this is what I think, can you confirm?:

    objective truth: all foods have calories

    subjective truth: i like oranges but not apples


    objective truth: any idea in itself, the idea of truth, or freedom, or justice, is objective in itself

    subjective truth: everyone’s interpretations of any ideas

    Hey, I streamlined my philosophy and was wondering if you can constructively criticize it:

    # 1.Everyone Is Free To Interact.
    However, the causes, consequences, and morality of any interaction can be black, white, and grey areas.

    # 2.Everyone Is Free To Change Their Mind.
    Everyone is free to agree, disagree, and change their mind as a matter of choice.

    # 3.Everyone Justifies Their Behavior And Perspective By Choice.
    Everyone should have as much freedom as justice allows.

    1. I think that’s better for sure. I definitely think your third point is better worded. It’s about doing what justice will allow, which I assume means doing what you can without harming others basically.

      If you want to, you could write an article about justificationism for me to feature on the blog. I will be glad to have a post on there from you! I think it will be an interesting addition to the conversation. I think if you put your three points, and explain what they mean to you, it would be a good read. I

      Just contact me and put your personal email in the message, and I will give you my email so we can figure it out. If you want to, that is.

  6. hah, sorry, between the time I made the previous post and this one, I had some help from a friend and already edited it one more, time.

    Justificationism is a philosophy
    for the pursuit of wisdom with 3 points:

    # 1.
    Everyone Is Free To Interact.

    However, the causes, consequences, and morality of any interaction can be black, white, and grey areas.

    # 2.
    Everyone Is Free To Change Their Mind.

    Everyone is free to agree, disagree, and change their mind as a matter of choice.

    # 3.
    Everyone Is Free To JustifyTheir Perspectives and Behaviors.

    Everyone should have as much freedom as justice allows.

  7. Pingback: Array
  8. This is a fantastic read and will be printing this out for friends and family to read. Really insightful into the concept of the State of the Union, as well as a focused and well-written analysis on the state of the current Presidency. A great review overall to be sure. I definitely hope you continue this work. I recently wrote this article concerning the constitution in my country New Zealand and how bizarre it is that we have a Queen as a head of state, still. Hope you check it out as I believe its a similar style to what I’ve just read. https://blacksheepweekly.com/2018/02/02/why-does-new-zealand-still-have-a-queen/

  9. Bullying is the problem. When someone get’s Bulled they use a gun to salve their problem. Guns aren’t the problem, Bullying is the problem.

  10. Could it be that Bullying is the problem? When someone gets bulled enough they get a gun and go stop the problem. (Bullying)

  11. I am always startled by totally emotion driven reactions in others. The proverb is “Treat others as you’d like to be treated” but when I offer the information I would want before I make a decision, it’s not wanted, it’s not relevant to the emotional reaction. Baffles me. Even worse when I ask someone for more information before I do something, and get told basically “but I am emotional about it, of COURSE it’s right!” Based on what data? Because as far as I can see, it’s inaccurate data.

    There are things to react to emotionally, but not everything. I know a guy who bought a truck he couldn’t afford, that doesn’t do what he needs it to do because “It sounds cool.” Well. Now THAT’S a reason to buy a truck? I thought you needed to haul certain stuff, and it won’t haul it. “But it sounds SO bad ass.” Baffles me. I could handle “Out of all the trucks that did what I wanted, this one sounds the most bad ass” but not “this sounds the most bad ass, whether it fills my needs or not.”

    As to the question ” Can we act logically and rationally without being driven by our emotion?” I’d say it’s not “CAN” because we can. WILL we? That’s the harder question.

    1. Also, I like the way you think. If you’d like to join the conversation, you should right a blog post for the Conversation of Our Generation!

  12. I think you are spot on! I’d say too, if the question is “will we act rationally without our emotions?” we have to also answer the question of “How do we?” But my point is as emotional beings we can never think purely rationally, because there is a balance between our rationality and our emotions. To me, the trick is to find a proper balance between the two

  13. Awesome article. It’s a shame that is MUCH too rational for the current system. As someone who has been a victim of violent crime, and of property crimes, none of which ended up with an arrest, I WISH the cops spent their time trying to stop the serious stuff, and quit harassing the rest of us. Worry a LOT more about rapists, and lot less about seatbelt violations.

    I agree that the problem is in the laws trying to legalize morality by various people’s opposing standards. Although how much of this is just me wishing the laws that represent MY morality (leave us alone if we aren’t affecting others!!) were the law of the land? Hard to say where the line is between “this is rational” and “this is my opinion.” I’m sure there are things others would consider overreach of the legal system that I consider serious crime (driving after drinking comes to mind, an awful lot of people seem to think it’s ok, I absolutely do not.)

    Part of the problem is the interconnectedness of this society. I can see why people want seatbelt laws, since people who don’t wear them tend to run up high emergency services/medical/disability bills that often end up being paid by the rest of us. I wear a seatbelt, but I don’t think ticketing people for doing so is a good use of police energy. Question here might end up being “how do we teach people to make well thought out choices, and protect the rest of us from the fallout of their choices?” Or even better, how do we get people to do the right thing without the threat of punishment? An awful lot of religions seem to have not managed that one, I doubt I will figure it out anytime soon.

  14. I just want to ask how many people that kneel for the flag shut off fireworks this year Rocket’s red glare bombs bursting in air

  15. It is such a tragedy but it’s worth pausing for a moment to recognize how many people have come together or donated in order to restore it. I wish there were enough gravity to approach climate change with the same enthusiasm.

    1. I agree. It’s awesome to see people recognizing its value, beauty, and history. I wish people would see that before it’s gone, and encourage people to explore the relics from the past we still have.

      I think there is enough support to talk about confronting climate change. There is an impugning of motives when it comes to that topic that often arises before any headway can be made in the discussion.

  16. Seriously? “Glossing over” is a good way to say “Hey, let’s forget that this country was built by the white man and his white beliefs” which absolutely were ALL concocted because of white supremacy. This is trash.

  17. Just what I needed on this morning! Thank you for your insight! Having said that I have a little push back… preparing for Christmas causes me personally a great deal of stress (mom hat). In order for me to be fully present on Christmas Day I have found if I’m fully ready a week before, I can destress and enjoy every moment of this beautiful holiday!
    One thought that I am going to ponder is extending the celebration! I have a tendency to stop celebrating way too soon!
    In the meantime podcasts like this one will allow my mind to prepare for Jesus birth!

    1. I know it’s hard, especially for moms. We found some ways to do it that were easy though when I was a kid.

      We’d leave Jesus out of the nativity scene until Christmas. And ours had the three wisemen so I’d move them closer after Jesus was born until the epiphany when they finally arrive. Advent wreaths and calendars are another way to let kids get involved and realize that they’re waiting for Jesus to come.

      Plus, St. Nicholas Day is a great one to celebrate so you can explain who Santa really is.

      As for us, a little fasting or extra prayer can help.

      I’m glad you enjoyed this episode! Keep the feedback coming- I like to hear what listeners are thinking.

  18. I think the truth of Gods existence is less important than how we know whether God is communicating anything to us in any way.

    For, what we could call inspiration from God, or communion or communication, regardless of its form, ultimately gets lost in what various humans might advocate as that communication.

    This is why I say the matter of the existence of God is a moot point, since all it really does is cause confusion and discord, for even what harmony it appears to bring is argued over, or is put off to some purpose of the world that will come to fruition in a proper manner that every one then also argues over.

    God? Yes.
    Now go do within the name of God without advocating any particular theology about why anything should be the case, or whether any God exists; that is, unless someone already believes. 🎄

    1. I’m not sure that it only causes confusion and discord to have these discussions about the nature of God when both people engage in a real discussion not just a “I’m going to win at all costs debate.”

      Much of the peace and prosperity that has come about in the world is because of people spreading the gospel.

      Have people done evil things in the name of religion? Sure.

      I don’t think there’s evidence that Christendom was more warlike than their neighbors in the world. In fact, I’d argue they were the most peaceful.

      The fruits of The monotheist traditions I have undoubtedly been a force for good in the world. And if the fruit is reflective of the idea in anyway, then I think it is safe to say that it is worthwhile to spread the fruits through the ideas.

      1. Yes. But that kind of goes to my point. God then is just another topic of discussion. It is the people who insist that they know the truth of it that cause problems. For if we were just talking about God and some general term, like I am the Christian of this God topic, and this other person is the pagan of this God topic, and this other person is there …etc… if everyone brings their ‘own truth’ then what are they really saying that “this is the truth”.

        And yes. Any topic has good and bad arguments to be made about it.

      2. But relativism doesn’t work. God either does or doesn’t exist. From there, you can walk through the implications for the world and how to act in it.

        We don’t take a relativist view on gravity. We say that it’s real and if you jump off a building you’ll fall.

        When it comes to the theory of relativity or how gravity ultimately works on the cosmic level, we really don’t know.

        Not being able to fully explain or prove something doesn’t mean it’s not real. It just means there’s more investigation to do.

      3. The God of the Bible? Am I allowed to have many wives or just one? Is the Bible only the first installment of his word, or the only one ? Am I allowed to kill Gods enemies if God tells me to? How do I know if God is speaking to me?

      4. But God, as God, does and does not exist. If he or it is either one or the other, then we are demanding that God is not God but some thing that answers to our knowledge, rather than us answering to him or it.

        This is the point Kierkegaard makes.

  19. I think it’s an obsession with safety that brings in these regulations that when implemented on a large scale makes everyone paranoid.

    I mean, the issue with Covid from most people standpoint is that they’re not safe. Look at the mask issue; peoples concern are about themselves or their families our friends getting Covid. It wasn’t about how can we best prevent the spread. The regular person’s fear was that they’re going to get Covid and is this particular mass going to prevent me from getting it.

    I tell everyone I see the reason why I married a mask is not so I don’t get it, unless I’m working in a hospital or close to patients who have it that is; The reason I wear a mask is so I don’t inadvertently give it to you, because I won’t know if I have it or not.

    And the reality of Covid is not so much that people are dying. Scientist have already shown us that Cove it is not behaving any differently than the flu or any other sort of respiratory coronavirus. Which is to say, the only difference is that it spreads like three or four times as well instead of 1.5 times as the flu.

    All these regulations that we’ve allowed the government to put in place for us is due to our own fear and ignorance feeding upon itself.

    There is something to say about modern ideology being the ideology The fear of death.

    The irony is that no matter how intelligently or rationally I talk about it, ultimately if I sneeze in your general direction closer than 6 feet I would bet you’re gonna get a reaction to me and you’re gonna get mad at me because I’m not wearing a mask or something.

    I would submit you can’t even control it. And these ultra rationalizations about the system taking away our freedom’s: we talk about them because were already aware of the situation, and we don’t want our freedoms taken. But look at me voice dictating this into a phone that’s measuring every step I take and probably analyzing every word I’m writing. I have become indoctrinated as well as complicit in the authoritarian system.


    The whole thing about the “new normal” is about death. I think it is about emotion, it is about fear of the unknown, but ultimately it is about losing something that is comfortable and that we loved.

    The idea of a new normal comes out of the trauma that people face when they lose a close loved one. The old normal is that you’re supposed to stop crying after two or three weeks. Something is wrong with you if you hallucinate For a month or two or say a bunch of strange things because your child died.

    The new normal is that you never get over it and you’ll probably be crying every day for the rest your life. But not that life is bad, or that something was wrong in the universe because the child died and so I’m going to try my best to get over my resentment and so my life basically sucks until I get some psychotherapy around it so I can get back to normal. No.

    It’s a new normal. It is peace, it is love, it is safe, it is what it is.

    🌈. Thanks, this voice dictation tends me towards long comments.

  20. I like Jordan Peterson. he just seems like someone who’s trying to do good. His philosophy…eh. I do like how he involves philosophy and psychology. And I like what he’s saying about how people want to grab onto these huge ideological structures before they really come to terms with one’s self. But then from a strict philosophical standpoint, he is missing a lot. I’d say he understands the philosophers that he uses probably 60%. But I like his psychological kind of mental health ideas. But I don’t agree with how he concludes that the only answer to the philosophical problem is Christianity.
    I wouldn’t say it’s love-hate; I would say it’s more compassion for someone who’s trying.

    And just the fact that he got addicted to drugs or various sorts and had to go to drug rehab, I think says something about what he’s missing in his linking of philosophy to Christianity. And this is less a judgment then just kind of a realization of a conceptual inability. For the conception of Christianity that he uses necessarily does not comprehend the philosophers that he wants to use to support it. Somehow I feel this disconnection, he felt deeply, to the extent that whatever seven says he was using, the incongruity that he didn’t want to admit of his great effort, the hole that he couldn’t fill neither conceptually nor that personally… well, that’s almost the definition of a drug addict. And there’s no judgment here because …there just isn’t. It’s a very compassionate and understanding of Peterson that I’m reflecting here.

  21. Nick, as a certified teacher who has spent my life around educating students and a person currently working in the social emotional learning space, I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion.

    1. I appreciate your input, and I’m glad that you didn’t take this as an affront on teachers in general. I think there are many teachers, especially in government schools who do just go along to get along for their job. But there are obviously a tremendous number of teachers who are really trying to do the best they can in a broken system

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: